Team A is shooting a free throw. Bottom spaces are occupied by players from team B. Team A chooses not to occupy the next space. Is a player from team B allowed to occupy this space? Rule states players from team A are entitled to this space, but if they don't want it, can team B have it, or must it remain open?

Which code?
 

NF Rules, the only requirement on the lane spaces are for Team B and the lower block spaces.

In NCAA Rules, Team A and B can only occupy adjacant spaces. Team B is allowed the lower block and only Team A can be in the space next to them. Now there are some variations between Men's and Women's, but that is another story all together.

Peace

Okay, here's another twist. A is shooting the foul shots. B1 and B2 are in the bottom lane spaces. A2 is in the next space up on one side, but no A player wants that next space on the other side, so B3 takes it. Now, who gets right of first refusal on the sapce next to B3? Can A legally demand it, since the rule uses the word "alternating"? If A took the space B3 is in, Bwould have first rights to the next space up. Do they get that anyway, since A gets first rights to that "middle" space? Am I making any sense?

Yes, I think I understand what you are asking. Here's how I interpret the whole process:

While the official still has the ball (before the free throw), A1 and A2 get the second spaces if they want them. If they don't occupy them, B3 and B4 can have them. If A1 or A2 then decide that they want either of those two spaces, they have the rights and B3 or B4 will have to move up one. If A1 or A2 don't want them and B5 takes the next spot (the third spot), A1 or A2 can then request the <i> second </i> spots (provided the ref still has the ball), but they can't ask for the third spot because team B has the rights in that one.

Z

Again....
 

FIBA is different - and easier.

If A4 is shooting free throws, B4 & B5 can occupy the bottom 2 spots, the next two can be filled by A5 & A6 and B6 can occupy one of the two top spots.

There is no requirement for the spots to be filled, and if anyone leaves a spot vacant the other team cannot fill the spot.

Much easier to administer hey? :D

Re: Again....
 

Does this mean that you might have nobody on the lane at all (besides the free throw shooter) on a free throw that is to remain alive? I'm just trying to understand completely. There's no requirement for the defense to occupy their lowest lane spaces?

Chuck

In the words of Samuel Jackson
 

Correctumundo!

It is possible that the only person left to rebound a free throw could be the shooter. Although, in some 20 years of basketball I have only ever seen it once.

Hey, I have question.

Why is there a box between the first two spaces on either side of the lane, rather than a narrow line, which separates the other spaces?

I have always been told that it was designed to reduce contact between the bigger players that typically assume these positions. Any other ideas?

Re: Re: Again....
 

There is no requirement for the spots to be filled, [/B][/QUOTE]
Does this mean that you might have nobody on the lane at all (besides the free throw shooter) on a free throw that is to remain alive?

RULE 8 Art.3
Each of the lane spaces adjacent to the endline SHALL be occupied by one opponent of the free thrower (unless the resuming of play peocedure is in effect/if the ball is to become dead if last free throw is unseccessful).

It is the lead referee's responsibility to require these two players to occupy the first lane spaces, and be sure they are from the opponents team.

Marty-
They were talking International rules(OZ ref) correct me if i am wrong

AK ref SE

Yup, that's right, Marty. Oz and I were talking about FIBA rules. Since I don't know anything about them, I asked him about the difference. You are absolutely correct that in NCAA and NF, both low spots must be filled if possible. Same is true in NBA.

Chuck

OOPS! Sorry guys. Didn't notice the change in direction of the original post. I usually ignore all interpretations that aren't NFHS (except in baseball where I totally ignore FED). I'm just trying not to clutter my mind with stuff I don't have to know. Hopefully, it leaves room for the stuff I DO have to know :)

Marty

I can understand your viewpoint, and when I first started visiting this forum I had the same attitude to all non-FIBA rule discussions. I was more interested in the philosphy and attitude of non-FIBA referees than the discussion on rules.

However, I have now become very interested in the differences and similarities between FIBA, NFHS, NCAA and NBA rules and intepretations. I have also found that it has improved my understanding of the reasons beind rules, and has greatly assisted my game management. You can only imagine the number of Australian players and coaches that "learn" the rules by watching the NBA (or NBL which has similar rules). Being able to say to them "no, that's the rule in the NBA. However, with FIBA the rule is (blah)".

Finally, the rules of FIBA, NCAA, NFHS and NBA are meeting in the middle - a little bit of knowledge on how the NBA (or FIBA or whatever) rules on a particular subject work can be a big advantage when the rules that you referee under change to the same ruling.

This is also very true here. I'm still amazed when coaches say to me, "TWO shots for a technical?!?! Since when?" The first time I heard it, I didn't know what to say. But now I respond (trying not to sound tired, sarcastic, or superior), "Yes, it's always been two shots under high school rules."